Re: [PATCH] serial: DCC(JTAG) serial and console emulation support

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>]

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 18:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:50, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 14:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:45, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:56 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> >> >> > I don't think the kernel is going to implode if we allow an optional
> >> >> >> > ttyS override for debugging purposes.. I just don't see that "screwing"
> >> >> >> > up the kernel.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That is perhaps why you are not a subsystem maintainer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I'm sure it's not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What I was telling Greg is that this type of override is allowed right
> >> >> > now, if you mod the source (everything is allowed if you mod the source
> >> >> > right?) ..
> >> >>
> >> >> just because someone can mod the source code to add a root shell
> >> >> doesnt mean we should accept patches to do it
> >> >
> >> > That's not what I was getting at. If you can mod the source to add the
> >> > override, then adding in a patch which also requires you to mod the
> >> > source to add the override should be acceptable because it's no
> >> > different that what we currently have.
> >>
> >> sorry, but you lost me.  all i see is "drop the hack code".
> >
> > I can make it simpler for you. You add code into Linux, people can
> > modify it, and you can't control that.
> 
> while true, that lacks justification for merging hacks into mainline

No one is merging hack, or giving justification for that.. So not sure
why your going down that thread again .

Daniel


-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.